Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or Staffbrewster Date: Mar 2, 2007 6:34pm
Forum: movies Subject: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again


Two of the much discussed BBC are available again, but this time as streaming flash files.

http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736

http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111736-1818

Based on the analysis of the time codes, the engineer involved is certain that the BBC was talking about the collapse before the building was reported to have collapsed on the www.911timeline.net site.

We hope to have other videos from this collection available soon.

-brewster
Digital Librarian


This post was modified by brewster on 2007-03-03 02:34:18

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Interogator Date: Mar 3, 2007 12:05am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

Brewster,

Can you explain what you mean by "Based on the analysis of the time codes, the engineer involved is certain that the BBC was talking about the collapse before the building was reported to have collapsed on the www.911timeline.net site".

1) Are you an Internet Archive "Digital Librarian"?

2) What "times codes" are you referring to?

3) Where is that information for all of the other files which were available earlier in the week.

4) Which engineers are you referring to?

5) There is one report that one of the xml files associated with the key clip
http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736 may have been edited on 18th February (the implication being that edited file may have been the file which held crucial time code information about the BBC WORLD clip (the downloadable file was V08591-16.mpg)

6) Have any of the mpg or .xml files been tampered with/edited over the past couple of weeks (especially since the BBC broadcast of the 911 Conspiracy on 18th February)?

It would have been more helpful to have had earlier footage so the material in the above clip could be searched for in broadcasts earlier in the day. As it is, it's still not crystal clear that the remarks you have posted clear up all of the critical issues. The Google 'flash' clip which appeared on the net on Monday 26th February (with its erroneous/misleading EST and 5 hour NY-GMT difference text alleging the GMT BBC WORLD broadcast was in fact before the 17:30 collpase of WTC7), did reference the original .mpg at www.archive.org in the text at the beginning, but the info at www.archive.org earlier on Monday/Tuesday (i.e. before the files were pulled) did state (in the reputably edited .xml file?) that the 41 minute clip was was 1654-1736 EDT (not EST).

There are too many still too many unresolved anomalies surrounding this entire matter. Has this site been hacked, edited or phished in recent times? Can a malicious effort to discredit the BBC in the wake of their highly critical 911 conspiracy theorist programme on 18th February be entirely ruled out?

http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736

This post was modified by Interogator on 2007-03-03 08:05:37

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jerry001 Date: Mar 3, 2007 1:03am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

Discredit the BBC? What for their biased reporting of the 911 Truth movement???

The BBC is nothing but a government shrill.

You, and all your corporate (owned) reporters have lost whatever respect you ever had. No one will believe a thing that you say anymore - and when 911 Truth proves that 911 was an inside job you will have a red-letter stamped on your forehead - forever.

Everyone is waking up now.

The people are blinded no more by your propaganda and disinformation.

Why don’t you take your 30 pieces of silver and go find a tree somewhere.


This post was modified by jerry001 on 2007-03-03 08:55:04

This post was modified by jerry001 on 2007-03-03 09:03:49

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Interogator Date: Mar 3, 2007 12:57pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

The BBC, like the British Civil Service, traditionally strives to be impartial.

Civil Servants advising ministers (or doing their bidding), like the BBC accurately reporting the news, is always a difficult and delicate matter (given that Ministers change). This is why advice/information has to be carefully, impartially and sensitively handled.

Whilst everyone makes mistakes, impatiality demands that one doesn't intentionally mislead and that requires intelligence and diplomacy. Surely that's what we've been witnessing?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/getwriting/A907689

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/richard_porter/




This post was modified by Interogator on 2007-03-03 20:57:40

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: reprehensor Date: Mar 3, 2007 3:58pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

That's hilarious!

This video illustrates how "impartial" the Beeb was regarding 9/11:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6398254539895168463&hl=de

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jerry001 Date: Mar 3, 2007 3:45am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again



The BBC did not do an impartial piece on the 911 Truth Movement - It was a hit piece.

The following breaks it down:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/190207tissueoflies.htm

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Interogator Date: Mar 3, 2007 6:44am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

If you look at the programme objectively, what you might see them benevolently highlighting is the extent to which not very smart people (and the numbers are alas growing, see the recent ETS report) are all too prone to enthusiatically go beyond the evidence available, abusing counterfactuals and other dubious idioms of propositional attitude (e.g. given we know that dogs have four heads it obviously follows that the Jewish mafia shot JFK etc), and worst of all, 'evangelists' (of all kinds) making great use of such nefarious rehtoric primarily in order to stir up bemused gullible congregations in order to ultimately relieve them of their loose change (or attract sponsors).



This post was modified by Interogator on 2007-03-03 12:49:26

This post was modified by Interogator on 2007-03-03 14:44:45

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: rastamon Date: Mar 3, 2007 6:55am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

I have a right to give my money to any cause or religion
as long as it's legal and not harming others.
Even to Al Gore's causes, the "used car salesman" type he is-imo

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Interogator Date: Mar 3, 2007 10:30am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

It comes down to what one means by harming others, and how far down the chain one traces the consequences I reckon. Lots of NGOs and "charities" fund raise for causes which are far from benevolent in the long run if you follow the money. Others are just tax shelters, and others still are explictly subversive to other regimes' interests whilst claiming to be "Human Rights" groups etc.

Still, we're "free" to do as we "choose" in our anarchistic "democracies". Sadly, some don't quite see the upside (especially when we insist on exporting it 'for their own good').

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: rastamon Date: Mar 3, 2007 4:06pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

If I want to give my money away, it may be your opinion that I'm throwing it away to some con man, maybe I don't see it that way. It's not harming OTHERS.
Example- If I give to a Christian Ministry and it give's me joy to do so, that's my F'n business. If you give to the DNC, that's your F'n business. I firmly believe in tithing and the giving Spirit.

I want the angel
Whose eyes are raving
Who takes what I'm giving and not what I'm saving

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or Staffbrewster Date: Mar 3, 2007 7:15am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again


Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Let me reply to some of these points.


> Brewster,
>
>Can you explain what you mean by "Based on the analysis of >the time codes, the engineer involved is certain that the >BBC was talking about the collapse before the building was >reported to have collapsed on the www.911timeline.net site".

>1) Are you an Internet Archive "Digital Librarian"?

Yes.

>2) What "times codes" are you referring to?

The Television Archive lays down a timeline track on the mpeg2 file as it is being encoded and stored. The storage medium at that time was digital tape.

>3) Where is that information for all of the other files which were available earlier in the week.

I assume you mean-- what happened to them. We still have them, but we took then out of public view so that we could work on making them available but with more context and possibly streaming.

The reason for streaming the files is so that we replicate the Internet availability these files had from October 11, 2001 for a couple of years.

>4) Which engineers are you referring to?

The engineer that encoded the video in 2001.

>5) There is one report that one of the xml files associated with the key clip
>http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736 may >have been edited on 18th February (the implication being >that edited file may have been the file which held crucial time code information about the BBC WORLD clip (the downloadable file was V08591-16.mpg)

We have transcoded these videos into streaming format.

The original file V08591-16.mpg has been recently pulled off of the original tape recorded in 2001 and the timecodes examined. They are the same. There is no evidence of tampering. We take our jobs seriously, and this is our opinion.

>6) Have any of the mpg or .xml files been tampered with/edited over the past couple of weeks (especially since the BBC broadcast of the 911 Conspiracy on 18th February)?

XML and derivative files have been made recently. We have been working to bring these files back online since before Sept 11, 2006 when we wanted these back up for the 5th anniversary. We have moved into high gear since this flared up in the last week.

>It would have been more helpful to have had earlier footage >so the material in the above clip could be searched for in >broadcasts earlier in the day. As it is, it's still not >crystal clear that the remarks you have posted clear up all >of the critical issues. The Google 'flash' clip which >appeared on the net on Monday 26th February (with its >erroneous/misleading EST and 5 hour NY-GMT difference text >alleging the GMT BBC WORLD broadcast was in fact before the >17:30 collpase of WTC7), did reference the original .mpg at >www.archive.org in the text at the beginning, but the info >at www.archive.org earlier on Monday/Tuesday (i.e. before >the files were pulled) did state (in the reputably edited >.xml file?) that the 41 minute clip was was 1654-1736 EDT >(not EST).

Our timecodes are UTC and we believe they are correct. The early analysis, therefore, appears correct even though there was a mistake of daylight savings time.

>There are too many still too many unresolved anomalies >surrounding this entire matter. Has this site been hacked, >edited or phished in recent times?

Not that we are aware of, but for the purposes of this discussion, the timecodes in the mpeg2 available earlier this week are the same as what was on the tape recorded at the time.

I don't know much about this controversy, but even if this time line is correct as it appears, I understand there are explanations every which way. All we are trying to do is provide the provenance and our opinion of how to interpret the data that is in the Archive.

>Can a malicious effort >to discredit the BBC in the wake of their highly critical >911 conspiracy theorist programme on 18th February be entirely ruled out?

We have no intention of this. I hope to see their program at someone.

Thank you again, for such a thoughtful and respectful interaction.

-brewster

>http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736

>This post was modified by Interogator on 2007-03-03 08:05:37

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Interogator Date: Mar 3, 2007 9:16am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

Brewster

Thanks for the response.

There are still points which don't quite make sense to me. Can you confirm that you are Brewster Kahle the Director and Co-Founder? (http://www.archive.org/about/bios.php) Are you a 'techie'?

I downloaded the critical clip on Tuesday and at present it isn't clear to me what timecode you're referring to. Nor have you really cleared up what the xml files are and how they relate to timecodes and other data. I asumme they are separate from the .mpg files? If files were put onto DAT back in 2001 how many files for each clip were stored and retrieved? How did you know what the timecodes were given the 1GB files downloaded give no clue?

Please understand that users have no way of confirming the authenticity of posters to this forum, or even that this site as the genuine site. With all the ire and the odd goings on since the BBC broadcast on 18th February, anything's possible. Many of the '911 Truth forums' are little more than alternative 'evangelical' businesses concerns, and the BBC programme was definitely bad for some of their business, so a retaliatory hit job is not out of the question.

The next file is in the BBC sequence *is* downloadable by the way. Why?

http://ia331338.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109111818-1859/V08591-24.mpg

System administratively, what makes little sense to me is a) why all of the other files went offline on Tuesday or Wednesday b) whether they were ever all available (just a few at a phished site would have sufficed for the scam if there had been one), and why were only these few files put back up? The critical files to have put up would have been *other* BBC files, i.e. from earlier in the day, along with similarly timed footage from other newscasters so the BBC clip http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg could have been corroborated.

The problem for users is authenticity. Not only of these files, but of the source.

No disrespect, but we need facts not what people think.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: reprehensor Date: Mar 3, 2007 4:05pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

"Please understand that users have no way of confirming the authenticity of posters to this forum, or even that this site as the genuine site. With all the ire and the odd goings on since the BBC broadcast on 18th February, anything's possible. Many of the '911 Truth forums' are little more than alternative 'evangelical' businesses concerns, and the BBC programme was definitely bad for some of their business, so a retaliatory hit job is not out of the question."

?

Are you a Conspiracy Theorist or what? LOL!

Yes, this is the "real" site, that's really brewster, I'm really me, but yeah, I guess "anything's possible."

It's possible that shills are out and about on the 'internets' obfuscating the facts. That's for sure.

When it's 1654 in NYC, it's 2154 in London. Even in BST/EDT.

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v491/reprehensor/?action=view¤t=bbc24_wtc7.flv

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Interogator Date: Mar 3, 2007 4:34pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

BBC WORLD broadcasts to the world so is stays on GMT throughout the year. If NY is 9/11 it is -4 GMT, if it is 11/9 it is -5 GMT. BBC NEWS 24 will be GMT or BST depending on the time of year.

How do you know who is who in a forum like this (I have indpendent evidece that Bewster is who he says he is, but that is not through him telling me so). If this was a mirrored site and phishing, how would you know?

The trouble with so many "truthers" is they just "know" what is true.... But knowing that, like thinking that, are propositional attitudes and the most controversial idioms in philosophy of logic. They're non truth-functional.

You're in 'cyber-space' typing and reading characters on your own screen.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: reprehensor Date: Mar 4, 2007 5:56am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

You are confusing The BBC World Service (radio) with BBC World Television, which is "the BBC's commercially funded, international 24-hour news and information channel, broadcast in English in more than 200 countries and territories across the globe. Its estimated weekly audience reach of 65 million makes it the BBC's biggest television service. Available in over 281 million homes, 1.3 million hotel rooms, on 48 cruise ships, 37 airlines and 29 mobile phone platforms, BBC World broadcasts a diverse mix of authoritative international news, sport, weather, business, current affairs and documentary programming."

That's from the BBC World Television web page.

Where did you get the information that BBC World Television broadcasts strictly in UCT/GMT? I don't see it.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Interogator Date: Mar 4, 2007 7:42am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

As I understand it, BBC World (like the older radio BBC World Service) broadcasts throughout the world and hence their names. So it is *always* on GMT (+4 EDT on 11 September 2001). It doesn't use a visual time stamp, as this is irrelevant to most viewers.

The associated (.xml?) file for V08591-16.mpg which *was* downloadable from here last week, did however have EDT times, which *seemed* to make the critical footage (i.e. where the anchor said that WTC7 had collapsed *before* 17:20 EDT) credible... but, a LOT has been going on this last week. Mistakes were made in the flash file uploaded to Google on Monday (stating a 5 hour difference between NY "EST" and London GMT). This was then pulled from some sites and Google. There were accustions of a "hit job" by the BBC in the wake of their 911 Conspiracy broadcast on Sunday 18th February (the date, coincidentally?, that one of the V08591-16.mpg associated (an .xml?)files (V08591-16.mpg shouldn't have been downloadable, but was) was also *possibly* edited (did this contain time data?). The fact that the archive files were all pulled because they were never meant to be downloadable (just streamble), and
quesions about the integrity of V08591-16.mpg itself given that BBC World no longer have their originals (after 90 days they keep 1/3 only) etc etc - ALL just combined to commend *caution* (i.e healthy forensic skepticism) under the circumstances. Was this a retaliatory job by those who felt slighted by the 18th February BBC programme?

It may all be just coincidence of course, but under the circumstances, it would be foolhardly just to assume that it is.

http://www.bbcworld.com/Pages/About.aspx
http://www.answers.com/topic/bbc-world

Look here for some critical discussion, or at least, some efforts to encourage more critical analysis ;-)

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7523&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=390



This post was modified by Interogator on 2007-03-04 15:42:17

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: rastamon Date: Mar 3, 2007 4:47pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

for example, I'm not what i appear to be...some dumb "rastamon" I am a Grey from Sirius, in conjuction with the Reptilians and the CIA, KGB...even ABC, I shall rule the world!
Brewster may in fact, be mad-scientist Brewmeister Smith who runs the Elsinore brewery
...aye hoser?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Interogator Date: Mar 4, 2007 12:12am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

Exactly ;-) ....that *could* indeed be the case.

You *appear* very be far too trusting/gullible. It leaves you open to exploitation. Unless you have a means to verify someone's identity, all you really have is text appearing on your screen. Why *should* people be honest when they can be ananymous? What reason do they have for seeking anonymyty in the first place?

Even when they "think" or "say" that they're being honest, how often do *they* know the truth (as opposed to just saying what what they "think" or "believe" (even "sincrely")?

Perhaos you should look at the crime rate, the extent of deception, as there are all sorts out there, many on street drugs, many on psychiatric meds (you'd be surprised), and others just too stupid to know what they're talking about (and still others with no grasp of what "truth" is at all).

People aren't angels and most are not very bright. The days when only the academic elite used computers have long gone.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Edsel Date: Mar 4, 2007 3:47am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

"(and still others with no grasp of what "truth" is at all)."

Recognizing that as a fact is the first step towards recovery. Good luck to ya.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: adisonedu Date: Sep 26, 2007 4:32pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

How true. The internet has allowed way too much. I remember long ago it was funny to get an email once a week that said someone wanted to give me 1.8 million dollars. I knew it was a con/spoof email and so ignored it.

Now it is weird not to get one in every hour of the day. Yesterday on one of the emails someone even wanted to give me 170 million, wow.

About 90% of the email I get are thieves trying to get my bank account numbers and somehow it has got to stop. These email spammers need to go to jail.

Any ideas on how, lets hear it...

Preston - http://www.adison.edu

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or Staffbrewster Date: Mar 3, 2007 11:39am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again


> Brewster

>Thanks for the response.

>There are still points which don't quite make sense to me. Can you confirm that you are Brewster Kahle the Director and Co-Founder? (http://www.archive.org/about/bios.php) Are you a 'techie'?

Yes.


>I downloaded the critical clip on Tuesday and at present it isn't clear to me what timecode you're referring to.

it is embedded in the mpeg2 file. beyond that I don't know, but mpeg2 wizards would.

>Nor have you really cleared up what the xml files are and how they relate to timecodes and other data. I asumme they are separate from the .mpg files?

yes, the xml files are separate from the mpg files. these are used for metadata.

>If files were put onto DAT back in 2001 how many files for each clip were stored and retrieved?

1 for the video, and then we sometimes have other files such as electronic program guides and closed caption data, but I believe you guys are concerned with the video.


>How did you know what the timecodes were given the 1GB files downloaded give no clue?

They are in the file.


>Please understand that users have no way of confirming the authenticity of posters to this forum, or even that this site as the genuine site.

Understood. You can do some online research about the Internet Archive to see what we do.

>With all the ire and the odd goings on since the BBC broadcast on 18th February, anything's possible. Many of the '911 Truth forums' are little more than alternative 'evangelical' businesses concerns, and the BBC programme was definitely bad for some of their business, so a retaliatory hit job is not out of the question.

Good to question everything. We have tried to be straight about the files we have. We try to give full access to everything, but in the US, libraries have come under increasing restrictions based on changes in copyright law (see Kahle v Gonzales case for instance).

>The next file is in the BBC sequence *is* downloadable by the way. Why?

>http://ia331338.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109111818-1859/V08591-24.mpg

These issues are in active evolution. We are attempting to make these available streaming. If a balance can be struck that publishers and libraries can work with, we all win. We made it too easy in this case, so we will be tightening it up. Publishing ways to copy the video files so that it is easy for others to do may not help us with this balance.


>System administratively, what makes little sense to me is a) why all of the other files went offline on Tuesday or Wednesday

We took them out of public view because they were downloadable in their original mpeg2 form.

>b) whether they were ever all available (just a few at a phished site would have sufficed for the scam if there had been one), and why were only these few files put back up? The critical files to have put up would have been *other* BBC files, i.e. from earlier in the day, along with similarly timed footage from other newscasters so the BBC clip http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg could have been corroborated.

We would like to get all of these videos back up as they had been for a couple of years after October 11, 2001.

>The problem for users is authenticity. Not only of these files, but of the source.

Yours to judge, but we have tried to make the underlying facts around these recordings and our organization available.

>No disrespect, but we need facts not what people think.

I am happy with the respectful and thoughtful tone of this and your other forum post.

-brewster
Digital Librarian
Internet Archive



>Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Interogator Date: Mar 3, 2007 3:18pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

Brewster

Thanks for your patience. Just a few more.

I was also interested in more info on the allgedly edited .xml file associated with the key file (as pointed out by Janice Matthews earlier in the week).

I have two of your 1GB files. Are you saying that the original timecode (time and date from 2001?) are embedded in those? If so, if anyone can point to some software which displays these, please let me know.

http://www.debugmode.com/userforums/viewtopic.php?p=4391&sid=bcca8b76de8c13b486e69ea12af21276

As to the files going offline, I'm puzzled as to why you didn't you just change all the permissions. Would that take so long? Why did it take so long to put up two files (and why not 102, or 202), and why even then, was the second of the two files I mentioned, *still downloadable today if you only put them up so they could be streamed and not downloaded?

Do you understand why I am puzzled?

This post was modified by Interogator on 2007-03-03 23:18:07

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Interogator Date: Mar 5, 2007 3:59am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

If possible, can you clear up a few points as it appears that many files were either restored or regenerated on 2nd March 2007. What I am after is a precise chronology of events over the past two weeks. I hope this request is not too much of an imposition. It would seem from the response below, that your organisation accepts that under the circumstances it was not unreasonable to query whether there was an opportunity to download/upload chanages to some of the BBC footage files on your site.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6630

What that audit trail would clear up is questions like the following, which I list as just examples:

1) Regarding the original 1GB .mpg files, it would clear up:

a) that you have the original 1GB mpg files for each feed on DAT and that those files were archived in 2001.
b) what date the 1GB files were stamped as?
c) that the dates and times of the file(s) on the tape were the same as those of the 1GB .mpg and other files which were in the bbc200109111654-1736 directory earlier in the week.
d) whether any of the files currently in that directory were over-written from recent restore (e.g. since 1st March 2007 as I see that some of the files are now dated 2nd March 2007)

2) If you still have the .xml files etc from earlier in the week, and if so, what the dates and times of those files are.

3) That the two versions of the streaming files (64K and 256K) were made from the 1GB .mpg file and what the dates of those were earlier in the week. That there is no difference between those there now, and those that were there last Monday.

I'm sure you see the gist of the request. As files could be ownloaded from these directories, could they have been uploaded too?

Thanks.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Steve Nordby Date: Mar 3, 2007 5:45pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

"We took them out of public view because they were downloadable in their original mpeg2 form."

What is wrong with making the originals available? It is most important for researchers - or frankly anyone interested - to have the originals. If only compressed copies are available, then not all the information is available.